Proposition 53K2357

Projet de loi modifiant la loi du 17 mai 2006 instaurant des tribunaux d'application des peines et la loi du 17 mai 2006 relative au statut juridique externe des personnes condamnées à une peine privative de liberté et aux droits reconnus à la victime dans le cadre des modalités d'exécution de la peine, en ce qui concerne l'entrée en vigueur.

General information ¶

Authors

CD&V Raf Terwingen
LE Christian Brotcorne
MR Philippe Goffin
Open Vld Carina Van Cauter
PS | SP Valérie Déom
Vooruit Karin Temmerman

Submission date

July 12, 2012

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

law relating to prisons criminal procedure application of the law carrying out of sentence

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

CD&V Vooruit LE PS | SP Open Vld MR

Voted to reject

Groen Ecolo ∉ N-VA LDD VB

Party dissidents ¶

• Bernard Clerfayt (MR) voted to reject.
• Peter Luykx (CD&V) voted to reject.
• Olivier Maingain (MR) voted to reject.
• Damien Thiéry (MR) voted to reject.

Contact form ¶

Do you have a question or request regarding this proposition? Select the most appropriate option for your request and I will get back to you shortly.

Discussion ¶

July 18, 2012 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

Marie-Christine Marghem, rapporteur, refers to the written report.

Mr. Speaker, colleagues, I can understand that some of the applicants of this bill, after Mrs. Becq, who at least has the courage to be present, are not here and prefer to hide. Why Why ? Because this bill, of course, involves the postponement of the execution of the short sentences by this government. I refer to Today’s News: “Mrs. Turtelboom” — currently not present — “does not fulfill her promises.” We have said this, of course, for a long time, but it is now also confirmed by some members of the majority.

However, I have always thought — it was also announced — that the execution of penalties for the Open Vld was a priority. Initially, the minister said that all penalties, including all short penalties, would be executed. Today it is said that a little more punishment would already be good. So one craps back and one puts that into action today, because what is there to vote for? The postponement of the entry into force of important legislation for the implementation of the short sentences. This legislation is six years old. It dates from 2006. Today, the majority will decide to postpone this legislation for another year. The execution of the punishment will therefore have to wait a little longer and that delay is therefore still requested quickly, with urgency, just before the recess. This is how it goes. In the justification, it is stated that there are budgetary restrictions. I begin to understand that. This afternoon I saw the news that the minister, who with great flair announced that she was going for 36 million extra for the execution of the penalty, received 1.1 million euros. I can therefore only conclude that the execution of punishment does not get the priority that one has always wanted to give it.

On the other hand, if there is a real intention to work on the execution of the penalty, then it is important that that legislation would come into effect. One cannot continue to announce something, as it was today, while there is a budget of 1.1 million euros.

There is a party chairman who has made the punishment execution the lakmus test for his party. I begin to become less hopeful more and more, because with an extra 1.1 million I fear the worst. I am afraid we will not get there. Forget the lactose test. The slogan “Do”, which is still used, should also be forgotten. “Suspension” would be better.

Colleagues, I would also like to remind you that this postponement goes straight against the own government agreement of the majority. There is a black on white indication that all the provisions of the criminal enforcement courts would be in force. So it is not so.

One would then think that it will be done through alternatives and one will announce additional staff, but with an additional budget of only 1.1 million! I want to see how far this will go. 36 million were asked, and that was too little. Now, 1.1 million is just a fraction of it. I fear the worst!

I am curious what alternatives this cabinet will formulate, except proposals to postpone legislation. So far, colleagues, we have not received a single bill from the cabinet. It remains with announcements and murmuring in the margin. The execution of punishment must be forgotten, which apparently is no longer a priority. One actually admits that, because one says very clearly that not all punishments should be executed and that a little more punishment execution will also be good. A little more, with 1.1 million extra resources... I fear it!

I am very concerned, I am very sorry about this. However, the facts will show who is right. I can only say that the announcement policy and all the balloons are slowly being pushed through, not only by the opposition, but today even by members of the majority, and that means something to say.

The fact that some colleagues are now absent, I think, is due to the fact that our meeting is going much faster than some expected.

Mrs. Minister, yesterday in the committee I already said to you, and I dare to repeat it here, that we understand the current bill that delays the functioning of the Penal Enforcement Court for sentences under three years, because there are no or insufficient resources to properly implement the law on the subject. We are deeply sorry for the delay.

Why do we regret this? The Criminal Enforcement Court and the Act on the External Legal Status were already introduced in 2006 by the then purple government. The same purple government then provided funds for execution of sentences longer than three years, but not for sentences shorter than three years. In the meantime, we had to establish that for the implementation of that last measure, i.e. for the execution of penalties under three years, a delay has already been requested twice, each through a bill containing various provisions.

The purpose of the Criminal Execution Court and of the Act on the External Legal Status is precisely to ensure that the execution of the sentence is carried out in a correct, objective and transparent manner, so that everything becomes a right and not merely a favor. In fact, it is not desirable that the nature and duration of a sentence of imprisonment imposed by a judge be changed by the executive power. The same applies for punishments over three years, but equally for punishments below three years.

This is important to us and we are not alone in this. Indeed, in the Government Agreement, we agreed that the priority should be given to the execution of short sentences and that all provisions relating to the Criminal Execution Court should be able to come into force.

Mrs. Minister, you have later said that, with the budget you received in addition, you will ensure more labor penalties, more hips and more successions in probation. In this sense, you will meet with the further implementation of the government agreement.

However, we expect that you will also implement the rest of the government agreement. The postponement is now granted until September 2013, but we expect you to ensure that the provisions on the Penal Enforcement Court are then fully implemented.

Unfortunately, this is not the first time similar proposals have been submitted. If we go back to June 2008, we can see that we had almost the same discussion at that time. I looked at the report and there are interesting things in it.

For example, a member of the Justice Committee said at the time: “What is proposed here is embarrassing, both on the legal-technical level and on the political level.” “The failure to execute the short sentence of up to three years in prison has effectively led the judges to impose higher sentences. This spiral will continue in the future.”

It is a quote from Mr. Renaat Landuyt, who apparently does not have much sense of participating in the debate. I understand that too, because he so fulminated against then-Minister Vandeurzen four years ago, when he came up with a bill to postpone the implementation deadlines.

We are sending a very bad signal. It was a bad signal four years ago and it is still the same now to again postpone the implementation of a law that is already six years old. However, this is not only your responsibility, Mrs. Minister. It is not only your fault that this happens, because your predecessors since 2006 are also co-responsible for the fact that the law in question cannot be enforced today. After all, there has never been serious work done on its implementation. It was not a priority, of no minister since 2006.

It also shows the bankruptcy of the penalty enforcement policy, because Parliament can either pass beautiful laws with beautiful principles in them, but that doesn’t help. Consequently, the courts will not decide on whether or not the early or conditional release of a detainee, because that will still fall under the regime of the “former regime”.

Mrs. Minister, you say that the reason is of a financial nature, that you do not have sufficient financial resources to implement the law now. That is not entirely correct. Of course, you need financial resources if you want to do so, but not just financial resources. Such an operation should also be prepared.

When the execution of the short sentences will also be judged by the criminal enforcement court, this also means very concretely that the criminal enforcement courts must have sufficient magistrates. That means that we will have to create additional chambers, that we will have to appoint additional magistrates, that there should be enough officers and administrative staff available, that there should be enough officials to follow up the files, for example in the courts, and that there should be enough staff to prepare the files, for example in the psychosocial service. However, it is precisely with the courts and the psychosocial services that you made savings a few months ago. However, the staff there plays a crucial role in a qualitatively responsible outflow of detainees.

In fact, this file is also a symbol of a failing global policy. Where do we want to go? How can we ensure that this overpopulation can be addressed by organising a smart, qualitative outflow, with adequate guidance, if so decided.

Mrs. Minister, you say we postpone the implementation of the law for a year, until 2013. I am afraid we will be here again next year. If we want the scheme to enter into force on 1 September 2013, work on its preparation must start today and then you must have those budgets.

You have stated in the committee that you would ask for budgets. Did you get the extra budgets for this tonight? I read that you have received them for electronic surveillance and for some other matters, but have you also received the budget to prepare for the implementation of this measure and to ensure that there are enough magistrates, officers and accompanying staff to put the system on the ground by 1 September 2013?

I am afraid that this will not succeed and that we will be here again in a year. We regret this and will vote against this legislative amendment.

Myheer de voorzitter, it is yet again a historical moment. Hoera, een jubileumviering voor het Belgisch Rechtssystem. Men slaagt erin om en wet five years lang niet uit te voeren, en van de mest elementare wetten op het gebied van de strafhandhaving in de strafuitvoering. It must be done.

This illustrates the bankruptcy of the Belgian system and especially of the Belgian legal system, where one really did not go a meter ahead in a diligent approach to the execution of penalties with regard to what one calls “short penalties”, but do not forget that those people are sentenced to a prison sentence of up to three years.

It is not possible to properly organize the execution of the penalty. One has to do it. I will be here again next year. I don’t know what will last the longest, the parliamentary career of most people here in the hemisphere or the ultimate implementation of this law.

We are curious. We will look at it. There is only one positive conclusion: fortunately there is little hope for this country, because a country that does not get this arranged is better off.

I would like to briefly respond to the comments. Of course, there is always a huge difference in the capacity to carry out imprisonment sentences under three years. Over the past days and hours, I have put the emphasis on gaining more capacity, thus more compliance with labour penalties and electronic surveillance, and removing the backwardness for labour penalties. I am extremely pleased with the support of all parties in the hemisphere to ensure that we are sure to keep the resources available for the effective implementation of the criminal enforcement courts at the next budgetary control. There is a world of difference between words and actions.

The latter actually intrigues me. I hear the Minister speaking about her hopes in the next budget control. I derive from this that last night no decision was made on additional budgets to enable the implementation of this law. I knew the minister had put this on the table.

Do I understand that within the six parties of the majority there is no consensus to implement this law? Those who are against it should stand up and say it honestly. I wasn’t there, I don’t know, but I just note that it was apparently requested and that there was no agreement tonight to provide additional budgets. The big question is, who is against it? We will have to see at the next budget control whether there is a question again, and whether there will be a answer again or not. My decision is that there is no will in this government to implement this law.

Colleagues, I would like to emphasize that the resources that have been released are the most important, in order to effectively execute the penalties. It is now less about who decides. Of course, I would like the sentences of less than three years to be imposed on term by the Criminal Enforcement Court. I will definitely put that on the table again at the next budget control, just like now and last time.

I am looking forward to knowing what additional funds will be involved. However, those resources alone are not sufficient. You should also gradually come to the committee with your legislative texts to put things into practice. However, we have not yet seen these texts.